Gilman's comments at the Canucks Business Network Event (June 5)

[phillipsj89]

WHL is also a higher scoring league in generally, so that makes Ritchie's stats more impressive.

And although JV is younger, he could very well peak at that production in the WHL. Shinkaruk's stats did not go any higher once he got older.

I dont think so. Looks pretty equivalent to the OHL. The QMJHL is the league missing defence.

 

[thefeebster]

Don't forget the WHL plays fewer games in a season too.

You might be mistaken. The WHL plays 72 games and the OHL plays 68 games.

EDIT: double checked his figures, appear correct to me. Mine are a hundredth off, but essentially the same end result. The OHL had the higher goals per game this season during the regular season.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

it's a pretty cool question.

sniper: prefers to work alone, but wants to get the job done. likes quick strikes. (pavel bure, alex ovechkin)

medic: team player who tries to get the best out of his teammates and is very vocal on the bench. a captain type player (jonathan toews)

helicopter pilot: a 3rd or 4th line player. a very integral part of the operation...but this is the guy who flies in the special-ops so they can go in and do the job. without the 3rd or 4th line guys, there can be no 1st line.

no idea if this is right, but these are the conclusions i draw

1) I like killing people
2) I like helping people
3) toys!

 

[bo2shink*]

...and that differs from the Canucks how?

At least Chicago finally got it right and did a proper tank and built their team the right way.

It's difficult to take garbage like this seriously. Luckily the internet isn't serious.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

You might be mistaken. The WHL plays 72 games and the OHL plays 68 games.

Whoops. Yeah.

Anyways, I went and calculated the average G/G for a team in each league this past year:

WHL: 3.34
OHL: 3.55
QMJHL: 3.33

EDIT: Yeah, I see your edit. It was the Q that was surprisingly low, not the dub that was surprisingly high.

 

[LeftCoast]

...and that differs from the Canucks how?

At least Chicago finally got it right and did a proper tank and built their team the right way.

Must I do this every time?

Much like when you said the Canucks were similar to the Flames until I pointed out that the Flames missed the playoffs 12 of the last 17 seasons and were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs 4 times (so if you are counting, that's 16 of 17 years).

The Blackhawks, between 1997-98 and 2007-08 missed the playoffs 9 of 10 season and were eliminated in the first round the other year (2001-02). Over that period of time, the Hawks had 7 Top 10 overall picks, 3 of which were Top 3 overall picks. They also had an additional 4 more picks in the 10 - 15 range. So very clearly, Chicago didn't just tank hard for 1 or 2 years then win the Cup. They sucked for an entire decade. They also didn't draft very well up until 2002 considering all of the high picks they had.

In contrast, the Canucks have only missed the playoffs in 3 of the last 13 seasons and have 5 first round failures spread over that time frame. The Canucks have had 4 Top 10 picks (and no top five picks) since 2000.

So does your tank plan for the Canucks include a decade of losing? Because that's the Chicago model. The Pittsburgh model is similar, but they only missed the playoffs for 4 years and got really, really lucky to win the lottery 2 times in 3 years, the most important being following the lockout when Sydney Crosby was drafted.

 

[John Bender*]

Must I do this every time?

Much like when you said the Canucks were similar to the Flames until I pointed out that the Flames missed the playoffs 12 of the last 17 seasons and were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs 4 times (so if you are counting, that's 16 of 17 years).

The Blackhawks, between 1997-98 and 2007-08 missed the playoffs 9 of 10 season and were eliminated in the first round the other year (2001-02). Over that period of time, the Hawks had 7 Top 10 overall picks, 3 of which were Top 3 overall picks. They also had an additional 4 more picks in the 10 - 15 range. So very clearly, Chicago didn't just tank hard for 1 or 2 years then win the Cup. They sucked for an entire decade. They also didn't draft very well up until 2002 considering all of the high picks they had.

In contrast, the Canucks have only missed the playoffs in 3 of the last 13 seasons and have 5 first round failures spread over that time frame. The Canucks have had 4 Top 10 picks (and no top five picks) since 2000.

So does your tank plan for the Canucks include a decade of losing? Because that's the Chicago model. The Pittsburgh model is similar, but they only missed the playoffs for 4 years and got really, really lucky to win the lottery 2 times in 3 years, the most important being following the lockout when Sydney Crosby was drafted.

Wow. You owned him there.

 

[CanaFan]

Well, it could a play to get BB to draft JV. BB likes truculence, confidence and still dislikes Vancouver so all this talk might be try to get BB to up his interest.

Fair enough, that would be a suitable motivation. However I would suggest that the strategy of talking up Virtanen as a "local kid" probably wouldn't be the most effective at boosting Burke's interest. Would expect the talk to be more about how they think JV has the most upside, or is the most physical, etc etc (i.e. things that Burke and Calgary would value).

But certainly anything is possible I guess.

 

[sithoutcast]

1) I like killing people
2) I like helping people
3) toys!

No Kesler is a Helicopter Pilot. Does everything on his own and doesn't use wings.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

1) I like killing people
2) I like helping people
3) toys!

I think the question has something to do with this... or they have some Dr psychoanalysing the answer (John Francis Daley)

However It seems like a flawed idea to get kids and give them 30 plus interviews in a short space of time, then ask them left field questions, and think you can get a real gauge on them... some guys would be better at doing it then others, but I think the idea is over rated...

I someone didn't draft a better player because the did not like there interview, they are fools IMO...

 

[DL44]

it's a pretty cool question.

sniper: prefers to work alone, but wants to get the job done. likes quick strikes. (pavel bure, alex ovechkin)

medic: team player who tries to get the best out of his teammates and is very vocal on the bench. a captain type player (jonathan toews)

helicopter pilot: a 3rd or 4th line player. a very integral part of the operation...but this is the guy who flies in the special-ops so they can go in and do the job. without the 3rd or 4th line guys, there can be no 1st line.

no idea if this is right, but these are the conclusions i draw

"If you were in the army and had to choose only one role, would you choose a sniper, a medic, or a helicopter pilot?"

I looked at it like more of look into the character...
Sniper - a sign of a less compassionate, vicious, type guy. Thinking you are able to kill a person on command is kinda messed up when there are two other options... reflection of type of teammate maybe? Or just driven to compete.. win at all cost. Fighting from a distance.. less risk.
Medic - more compassionate, caring of people... or maybe a guy that picks the safe route. less risk. More passive personality.
Pilot - adventurous, in control, responsible for his passengers...delivering the goods. greater risk. etc..

I wonder if players answer these things honestly.. or answer what think the team wants to hear...

I would venture a guess that many 18 yr olds answering on the spot would pick sniper thinking that that is what teams want to hear ... Explanations on their answers would be pretty interesting to hear tho.

 

[a Fool]

No Kesler is a Helicopter Pilot. Does everything on his own and doesn't use wings.

Or he's the sniper cause that's his go to play; or maybe he's the medic cause he's always on IR

 

[Demko]

"If you were in the army and had to choose only one role, would you choose a sniper, a medic, or a helicopter pilot?"

I looked at it like more of look into the character...
Sniper - a sign of a less compassionate, vicious, type guy. Thinking you are able to kill a person on command is kinda messed up when there are two other options... reflection of type of teammate maybe? Or just driven to compete.. win at all cost. Fighting from a distance.. less risk.
Medic - more compassionate, caring of people... or maybe a guy that picks the safe route. less risk. More passive personality.
Pilot - adventurous, in control, responsible for his passengers...delivering the goods. greater risk. etc..

I wonder if players answer these things honestly.. or answer what think the team wants to hear...

I would venture a guess that many 18 yr olds answering on the spot would pick sniper thinking that that is what teams want to hear ( when don't think it really is)... Explanations on their answers would be pretty interesting to hear tho.

I saw it as..

Sniper= One man show, go for the goal 10/10
Medic= Team player, will make the shot but if there is a pass to ensure a goal. Take it.
Helicopter pilot= floater.

LOL

 

[LiquidSnake]

To me:

Sniper - wants the game in his hands.
Medic - willing to get hands dirty to help teammates
Pilot - doesn't want to get too close to the action.

 

[damack]

Pilot gets the chicks...

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Pilot gets the chicks...

Not if you don't know how to operate the machinery.

 

[John Bender*]

To me:

Sniper - wants the game in his hands.
Medic - willing to get hands dirty to help teammates
Pilot - doesn't want to get too close to the action.

I was thinking sniper was the guy that was not interested in the battle, wanted to be hidden back behind the scenes. Pilot? Pretty dangerous work in a conflict situation.

It's a dumb question anyway.

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

The question wasn't "compare your play style to a role in the military" but "which role would you pick", and I think it's the type of question where scouts/evaluators are more interested in the player's rationale for the choice more than the choice itself.

 

[The Vengabus]

These are stupid questions in a work setting and even more stupid questions in a professional sports setting.

 

[gobi]

I am curious which team asked that question. If I am the player being asked, I would silently pray that team won't draft me.

 

[John Bender*]

I am curious which team asked that question. If I am the player being asked, I would silently pray that team won't draft me.

I suspect Garth snow.

 

[DL44]

It seems to be a question in which the explanation of the answer they give is key...

 

[JuniorNelson]

What were Benning's remarks leading away from?

 

[RandV]

Yeah the Bill Wirtz era was so memorable right, I mean the team only sucked for almost the whole 90's and the early 2000's.

Anyone else remember the short lived era with... was it Mike Smith? The agent that represented a lot of Russian players, and tried turning Chicago into a Russian team. After the 99 draft trade acquiring Bryan McCabe and the Canucks 2000 draft, after one season McCabe was sent to Toronto for Alexander Karpotsev and a 4th (drafted a Russian), and with the 1st rounder and their own making back to back picks at 10/11 took Mikhail Yakubov and Pavel Vorobiev. These were made with a number of other pro-Russian trades/drafts.

Not that there's anything wrong with Russian players, but they don't have the best rep as winners in the NHL and it was funny to see someone in an actual GM position employing such a nationally biased approach

 

[bo2shink*]

Must I do this every time?

Much like when you said the Canucks were similar to the Flames until I pointed out that the Flames missed the playoffs 12 of the last 17 seasons and were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs 4 times (so if you are counting, that's 16 of 17 years).

The Blackhawks, between 1997-98 and 2007-08 missed the playoffs 9 of 10 season and were eliminated in the first round the other year (2001-02). Over that period of time, the Hawks had 7 Top 10 overall picks, 3 of which were Top 3 overall picks. They also had an additional 4 more picks in the 10 - 15 range. So very clearly, Chicago didn't just tank hard for 1 or 2 years then win the Cup. They sucked for an entire decade. They also didn't draft very well up until 2002 considering all of the high picks they had.

In contrast, the Canucks have only missed the playoffs in 3 of the last 13 seasons and have 5 first round failures spread over that time frame. The Canucks have had 4 Top 10 picks (and no top five picks) since 2000.

So does your tank plan for the Canucks include a decade of losing? Because that's the Chicago model. The Pittsburgh model is similar, but they only missed the playoffs for 4 years and got really, really lucky to win the lottery 2 times in 3 years, the most important being following the lockout when Sydney Crosby was drafted.

It's easy to call for a "proper" rebuild when people have convinced themselves that the suffering has already happened. I for one, can't wait for 2022!